VR-Zone x2900xt review

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Matt2
Very disappointing.



Nvidia has a faster card and better IQ. When was the last time that happened?

Yeah, it looks like the GTS beats it on every front (not). Faster (depends on game and settings), Cheaper (true), Better IQ (seems to be so) , less heat (true), less noise (did the reviewer say it was noisy? I missed that entirely), less power used (true), better drivers (initially, true, but that will change quickly).

I was hoping after 7 months that we would see something truly amazing.

So, suddenly I feel a lot better about my GTS purchase. I paid 359.00 for it so it comes in even cheaper than the XT. Lets see if ATI can squeeze some more performance out of this new architecture.

 

[MadBoris]

I can't help but comment on this, but I'm amazed how some people are excusing ATI for their drivers.
These are the shipping products.

Originally posted by: enz660hp
I feel like we cant make any judgments just quite yet since the drivers are buggy, and the 8800's drivers are heavily optimized.

What?
This is THE time to make judgements. It's what is in the box at the store.

Originally posted by: apoppin
and with driver improvements ... it could end up getting very close to the GTX

I guess we could say with driver improvements the 8800 GTX may get better too, Nvidia has done that mid cycle before.

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I want to see how the 2900XT performs with more refined drivers. Some of those tests are obviously driver related.

Your seeing it the way it is being shipped. Buy it or not.
Or buy it and wait 6 months hoping it will get better.

I think it is hilarious how people can beat up Nvidia for it's drivers yet excuse ATI because it's got buggy drivers.
We will hear more real soon about more driver problems.

Nvidias drivers will get better too. Nvidia are not idiots, they will get drivers cleaned up much better, they have struggled with not enough resources and MS communication on Vista and DX10. The funny thing is ATI will struggle the same way. ATI have an advantage in being late, Microsofts Vista team is probably much more ready to help ATI now that Nvidia worked with them the last year in getting the new driver model working right.

It is what it is. I'm a fan of the best available product.

 

[Cookie Monster]

AA is better on the R600?

It may get smoothen out more jaggies, but in the consequence of having the entire thing blurred out.

After looking at the screenshots in vr-zone, im a bit skeptical abotu CFAA. Even though CSAA may produce abit more jaggies, the images still remain sharp so you can still see the details, but CFAA kills it with blur. (People need to realise that CFAA may well be a improved version of quincunx AA)

Cant wait for a more indepth review though.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Matt2
Very disappointing.



Nvidia has a faster card and better IQ. When was the last time that happened?

Yeah, it looks like the GTS beats it on every front (not). Faster (depends on game and settings), Cheaper (true), Better IQ (seems to be so) , less heat (true), less noise (did the reviewer say it was noisy? I missed that entirely), less power used (true), better drivers (initially, true, but that will change quickly).

I was hoping after 7 months that we would see something truly amazing.

So, suddenly I feel a lot better about my GTS purchase. I paid 359.00 for it so it comes in even cheaper than the XT. Lets see if ATI can squeeze some more performance out of this new architecture.

and i feel a lot better about not having upgraded at all - yet

zero *need*

i "feel" for you guys that have to make a choice between the GTX and the HDXT

for me it would be 'tough'

but from what i see so far ... the XT is 100% competitive - in every way

and a nice *jump* over x1900 series

 

[Extelleron]

Where is this blur all you people talk about? What SS?

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: n7
Who the eff uses no AA these days...

well, just about anyone using a game with deferred rendering/shading (any U3 engine games, STALKER, etc..)

 

[Summitdrinker]

not all that impressed..........buggy drivers ?well they plenty of time to work on drivers, plus it's sign that they had hardware problems too. you can't test drivers if the hardware didn't work 4 months ago etc

but I will wait till more reviews come out

it doesn't really matter all that much to me at this time, I don't plan on buying any new graphics card in the near future or maybe not even in the next 6 months or longer

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: n7
I want a card that works well & with all capabilities in Vista.

Newsflash, nVidia has been sucking large nuts when it comes to drivers lately, especially in Vista, & unfortunately, i can't trust them to actually fix issues or release fixes, since improvements just aren't the nVidia way.

umm.. the 158 series driver for Vista is rock solid.

in fact, Vista has now been my main OS for over a month, and I have no issues whatsoever with current forceware driver.

they still have some small issues that need to pan out, but other than SLI, these drivers are no worse than typical XP drivers from ati or nvidia.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Matt2
Very disappointing.



Nvidia has a faster card and better IQ. When was the last time that happened?

Yeah, it looks like the GTS beats it on every front (not). Faster (depends on game and settings), Cheaper (true), Better IQ (seems to be so) , less heat (true), less noise (did the reviewer say it was noisy? I missed that entirely), less power used (true), better drivers (initially, true, but that will change quickly).

I was hoping after 7 months that we would see something truly amazing.

So, suddenly I feel a lot better about my GTS purchase. I paid 359.00 for it so it comes in even cheaper than the XT. Lets see if ATI can squeeze some more performance out of this new architecture.

and i feel a lot better about not having upgraded at all - yet

zero *need*

i "feel" for you guys that have to make a choice between the GTX and the HDXT

for me it would be 'tough'

but from what i see so far ... the XT is 100% competitive - in every way

and a nice *jump* over x1900 series

@ what's bolded: Nah, not really 100% competitive. It could get there down the road a piece with newer drivers, but then again, Nv could manage the same improvements.
Seems a direct competitor to the GTS for sure, which is not bad at all considering price points. I think all of us were expecting so much more from R600, at least when we looked at the paper specs of the card. It looked to be a juggernaut, but sadly, it's a Juggernot.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Anyway, before everyone jumps on the "8800 IQ is better" bandwagon... I don't see the difference between any of those shots and apparently neither did the reviewer.... he said their MIGHT have been a very small difference in favor of nVidia... because of those words everyone on here starts talking about how sucky ATI IQ is.

Even the ones that were circled for you? And who circled them? Had to be the reviewer, yes?
So apparently, the reviewer DID see some difference. Which review are you referring to?

The only screenshot where I can tell a noticeable difference (other than the ss's showing AA quality) is the one with the gun in BF 2142. nVidia is clearly better in that scenario, but I don't see such a difference, nor did the reviewers, anywhere else. They used a lot of "maybe" and "slightly" when describing nVidia being better than ATI.

Even though I'm not interested in buying it myself, I'm looking forward to the review of the HD 2600 series. It seems to be cut down a lot less than the 8600 is versus the 8800. The 2600XT has 120 shaders, 37.5% of the shaders the high end 2900XT has. The 8600 has 25% of the shaders the 8800 has. The 2600XT also runs at 800MHz. It'll have a 128-bit bus AFAIK but apparently is going to use GDDR4 memory.

You still have to take into consideration the fact that the X2900 XT is currently competing with Nvidia's 8800 GTS 640 only overall. While the shader units on X2600 themselves are cut down to 3/8 of the X2900 XT, in comparison to the 8800 GTS 640 the units are cut down to 1/3 on the 8600 as well you have to compare the clockspeeds. X2900 XT is about 750MHZ the X2600 will be 800, while the 8800 GTS 640 is 500 the 8600 GTS is 675, so overall even assuming the X2900 XT should be a tad better then 8800 GTS 640. The X2600 is more cut down then the 8600 GTS is in comparison to the 2 comperable cards. Overall I expect them to trade blows.

The only good thing I am hearing about the X2600 XT is the fact that it doesn't require a 6 Pin PCI-E connector since it runs at 45W as well as the fact the die size for once on ATi is smaller in the mid range, maybe allowing ATI to actually to make money on mid range cards for a change, and not have to resort to disabling high end cores.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: n7
I want a card that works well & with all capabilities in Vista.

Newsflash, nVidia has been sucking large nuts when it comes to drivers lately, especially in Vista, & unfortunately, i can't trust them to actually fix issues or release fixes, since improvements just aren't the nVidia way.

umm.. the 158 series driver for Vista is rock solid.

in fact, Vista has now been my main OS for over a month, and I have no issues whatsoever with current forceware driver.

they still have some small issues that need to pan out, but other than SLI, these drivers are no worse than typical XP drivers from ati or nvidia.

Honestly, that's good to hear.

I have heard basically nothing but bad things w/ nV + Vista, so i am not feeling overly optimistic about getting an 8800 GTX.

But if things have improved now, that's very good.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: n7
I want a card that works well & with all capabilities in Vista.

Newsflash, nVidia has been sucking large nuts when it comes to drivers lately, especially in Vista, & unfortunately, i can't trust them to actually fix issues or release fixes, since improvements just aren't the nVidia way.

umm.. the 158 series driver for Vista is rock solid.

in fact, Vista has now been my main OS for over a month, and I have no issues whatsoever with current forceware driver.

they still have some small issues that need to pan out, but other than SLI, these drivers are no worse than typical XP drivers from ati or nvidia.

Why does nVidia Control Panel suddenly shutdown everytime I try to adjust my Medieval II: TW game profile? Sounds like a small problem but its still a PITA.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Anyway, before everyone jumps on the "8800 IQ is better" bandwagon... I don't see the difference between any of those shots and apparently neither did the reviewer.... he said their MIGHT have been a very small difference in favor of nVidia... because of those words everyone on here starts talking about how sucky ATI IQ is.

Even the ones that were circled for you? And who circled them? Had to be the reviewer, yes?
So apparently, the reviewer DID see some difference. Which review are you referring to?

The only screenshot where I can tell a noticeable difference (other than the ss's showing AA quality) is the one with the gun in BF 2142. nVidia is clearly better in that scenario, but I don't see such a difference, nor did the reviewers, anywhere else. They used a lot of "maybe" and "slightly" when describing nVidia being better than ATI.

Even though I'm not interested in buying it myself, I'm looking forward to the review of the HD 2600 series. It seems to be cut down a lot less than the 8600 is versus the 8800. The 2600XT has 120 shaders, 37.5% of the shaders the high end 2900XT has. The 8600 has 25% of the shaders the 8800 has. The 2600XT also runs at 800MHz. It'll have a 128-bit bus AFAIK but apparently is going to use GDDR4 memory.

You still have to take into consideration the fact that the X2900 XT is currently competing with Nvidia's 8800 GTS 640 only overall. While the shader units on X2600 themselves are cut down to 3/8 of the X2900 XT, in comparison to the 8800 GTS 640 the units are cut down to 1/3 on the 8600 as well you have to compare the clockspeeds. X2900 XT is about 750MHZ the X2600 will be 800, while the 8800 GTS 640 is 500 the 8600 GTS is 675, so overall even assuming the X2900 XT should be a tad better then 8800 GTS 640. The X2600 is more cut down then the 8600 GTS is in comparison to the 2 comperable cards. Overall I expect them to trade blows.

The only good thing I am hearing about the X2600 XT is the fact that it doesn't require a 6 Pin PCI-E connector since it runs at 45W as well as the fact the die size for once on ATi is smaller in the mid range, maybe allowing ATI to actually to make money on mid range cards for a change, and not have to resort to disabling high end cores.

In some games the 2900XT is competing with the 8800GTS but in most games, at higher resolutions, it's very close between the XT and GTX. Yes, the XT is slower but in the majority of scenarios (I'm talking about the tweaktown review, which is better than VR-Zone's but its been taken down) it is closer in performance to the GTX than it is to the GTS, and this is on release drivers. Overall I think the HD 2600XT vs 8600GTS is going to be an interesting showdown.

 

[MrJim]

What about the Universal Video Decoder? This is what im looking forward to most myself, and the 65nm parts. The heat and watts of these high-end cards are crazy.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
In some games the 2900XT is competing with the 8800GTS but in most games, at higher resolutions, it's very close between the XT and GTX. Yes, the XT is slower but in the majority of scenarios (I'm talking about the tweaktown review, which is better than VR-Zone's but its been taken down) it is closer in performance to the GTX than it is to the GTS, and this is on release drivers. Overall I think the HD 2600XT vs 8600GTS is going to be an interesting showdown.

I will have to remain skeptical on this till I can see the Tweaktown review for myself.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Matt2
Very disappointing.



Nvidia has a faster card and better IQ. When was the last time that happened?

Yeah, it looks like the GTS beats it on every front (not). Faster (depends on game and settings), Cheaper (true), Better IQ (seems to be so) , less heat (true), less noise (did the reviewer say it was noisy? I missed that entirely), less power used (true), better drivers (initially, true, but that will change quickly).

I was hoping after 7 months that we would see something truly amazing.

So, suddenly I feel a lot better about my GTS purchase. I paid 359.00 for it so it comes in even cheaper than the XT. Lets see if ATI can squeeze some more performance out of this new architecture.

and i feel a lot better about not having upgraded at all - yet

zero *need*

i "feel" for you guys that have to make a choice between the GTX and the HDXT

for me it would be 'tough'

but from what i see so far ... the XT is 100% competitive - in every way

and a nice *jump* over x1900 series

@ what's bolded: Nah, not really 100% competitive. It could get there down the road a piece with newer drivers, but then again, Nv could manage the same improvements.
Seems a direct competitor to the GTS for sure, which is not bad at all considering price points. I think all of us were expecting so much more from R600, at least when we looked at the paper specs of the card. It looked to be a juggernaut, but sadly, it's a Juggernot.

it IS a competitor to GTS -- NOT GTX

and i *still* don't get the IQ "conclusions" the guys are drawing - ostensibly from the review

here is *every comment* the reviewer made:

Results seem almost indistinguishable, even at a blown up look such as this. If one tries to knit pick, it seems that the filtering is only slightly rougher on the ATi where by the transition in color is very slightly less smoother than the NVIDIA, from one pixel to the next.

As seen on Company Of Heroes, the quality is so close it's rather tough to distinguish. Similarly, the filtering seems to be slightly rougher on the ATi, I'm leaning a bit towards the preference of NVIDIA's filtering which comes across slightly smoother. But more scenes and checks must be conducted.

Even this is really hard to pick from. If you want to knit pick, you may find that from one small part, it seems the filtering is a little sharper on the NVIDIA:

No clear conclusion

Vegetation seems to be a fair bit more different. Here, you can acutely see that the 8800GTS renders the closer bunch of leaves sharper, yet rougher. There's a clearer distinction in colors of bunches of leaves on the GTS. This may also mean slightly more aliasing with the resultant effect being some "texture swimming" during movements of your character or as the wind blows.

At normal view screen size you can already tell the difference. Look at the gun, that's closest to your character, you can see it starkly sharper on the 8800 compared to the 2900. Notice especially the words and buttons on the gun. Words are sharper and so are the finer details on the buttons on the card below. Even the dirt track further away from the character looks sharper rendered on the 8800.

you got me - on *one*

In terms of Jaggie-elimination Anti-Aliasing, the maximum capability of the X2900XT is very close to the capability of the 8800GTS. Remember, this is 16x Sampling Wide-Tent AA at 8x Level versus 16x Quality AA.

Ah yes, we can see quite a difference now. The Anti-Aliasing is better on the 2900 card as compared to the 8800 card when both is set to run the maximum AA capability.

Well, it does seem that there is an Image Quality Improvement on the X2900XT cards as compared to previous generation X1950 cards. The X2900 outshines the GeForce 8800 in Anti-Aliasing Quality slightly, while the Anisotropic Filtering on the 8800 still seems to be a little more accurate compared to the X2900XT.

what is the problem?

the nvidiots see the AMD IQ as fUgly ... the fanatics think the 8800 is a driver-crippled mess

they are *very competitive cards* ... the HDXT and the GTS ...

glad i finally have a *choice*

:thumbsup:

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Matt2
Very disappointing.



Nvidia has a faster card and better IQ. When was the last time that happened?

Yeah, it looks like the GTS beats it on every front (not). Faster (depends on game and settings), Cheaper (true), Better IQ (seems to be so) , less heat (true), less noise (did the reviewer say it was noisy? I missed that entirely), less power used (true), better drivers (initially, true, but that will change quickly).

I was hoping after 7 months that we would see something truly amazing.

So, suddenly I feel a lot better about my GTS purchase. I paid 359.00 for it so it comes in even cheaper than the XT. Lets see if ATI can squeeze some more performance out of this new architecture.

and i feel a lot better about not having upgraded at all - yet

zero *need*

i "feel" for you guys that have to make a choice between the GTX and the HDXT

for me it would be 'tough'

but from what i see so far ... the XT is 100% competitive - in every way

and a nice *jump* over x1900 series

@ what's bolded: Nah, not really 100% competitive. It could get there down the road a piece with newer drivers, but then again, Nv could manage the same improvements.
Seems a direct competitor to the GTS for sure, which is not bad at all considering price points. I think all of us were expecting so much more from R600, at least when we looked at the paper specs of the card. It looked to be a juggernaut, but sadly, it's a Juggernot.

it IS a competitor to GTS -- NOT GTX

and i *still* don't get the IQ "conclusions" the guys are drawing - ostensibly from the review

here is *every comment* the reviewer made:

Results seem almost indistinguishable, even at a blown up look such as this. If one tries to knit pick, it seems that the filtering is only slightly rougher on the ATi where by the transition in color is very slightly less smoother than the NVIDIA, from one pixel to the next.

As seen on Company Of Heroes, the quality is so close it's rather tough to distinguish. Similarly, the filtering seems to be slightly rougher on the ATi, I'm leaning a bit towards the preference of NVIDIA's filtering which comes across slightly smoother. But more scenes and checks must be conducted.

Even this is really hard to pick from. If you want to knit pick, you may find that from one small part, it seems the filtering is a little sharper on the NVIDIA:

No clear conclusion

Vegetation seems to be a fair bit more different. Here, you can acutely see that the 8800GTS renders the closer bunch of leaves sharper, yet rougher. There's a clearer distinction in colors of bunches of leaves on the GTS. This may also mean slightly more aliasing with the resultant effect being some "texture swimming" during movements of your character or as the wind blows.

At normal view screen size you can already tell the difference. Look at the gun, that's closest to your character, you can see it starkly sharper on the 8800 compared to the 2900. Notice especially the words and buttons on the gun. Words are sharper and so are the finer details on the buttons on the card below. Even the dirt track further away from the character looks sharper rendered on the 8800.

you got me

In terms of Jaggie-elimination Anti-Aliasing, the maximum capability of the X2900XT is very close to the capability of the 8800GTS. Remember, this is 16x Sampling Wide-Tent AA at 8x Level versus 16x Quality AA.

Ah yes, we can see quite a difference now. The Anti-Aliasing is better on the 2900 card as compared to the 8800 card when both is set to run the maximum AA capability.

Well, it does seem that there is an Image Quality Improvement on the X2900XT cards as compared to previous generation X1950 cards. The X2900 outshines the GeForce 8800 in Anti-Aliasing Quality slightly, while the Anisotropic Filtering on the 8800 still seems to be a little more accurate compared to the X2900XT.

what is the problem?

the nvidiots see the AMD IQ as fUgly ... the fanatics think the 8800 is a driver-crippled mess

they are *very competitive cards* ... the HDXT and the GTS ...

glad i finally have a *choice*

:thumbsup:

drivers work fine for me, dont know what you guys have been doing... Ive been enjoying sky high fps for months now without issues

 

[apoppin]

good for you ... the 1%
:thumbsup:

STALKER runs *perfectly* - for me

 

[Cookie Monster]

All is nice and dandy, but the only reason NV has the sharper image is because ATi's new CFAA is an improved form of Quincunx AA! you get less jaggies for more blurred images i.e resulting in loss of detail in the textures!

Id wish for ATi to go with the traditional method, e.g 16xMSAA etc etc instead of CFAA which seems like it was a quick counter to CSAA. Im not sure if its done it at a hardware or software level, but this exact method can be done on G80 cards as well at a software (driver) level.

Btw, what was the tweaktown review like? i didn't make it on time.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: apoppin
good for you ... the 1%
:thumbsup:

STALKER runs *perfectly* - for me

runs perfectly for me too

ill put up a poll in a new topic

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: apoppin
good for you ... the 1%
:thumbsup:

STALKER runs *perfectly* - for me

runs perfectly for me too

ill put up a poll in a new topic

the *point* is that *some people* will have different results than others
-many people are *hating* STALKER because of perf issues

and nvidia driver issues are *noted elsewhere* ... nevermind how many fanboys you can get to say "no problem with nvidia drivers" in a useless poll
:roll:

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Like others, no new games will allow me to wait longer for the 8900s and 2950s to come out. Better drivers, performance and hopefully better prices.

That's really it for me too. I am a performance lover and I'd love to buy the 8800GTX to see it smoke my x1900, but:

I've had:

6600 GT ---> 7800GTX ----> x1900xtx ... and, I'm still playing the same damn game primarily now that I was with my 6600GT! Battlefield 2. Still waiting on new games, I'm not upgrading again until there's a real reason.

 

[MadBoris]

Originally posted by: apoppin
and nvidia driver issues are *noted elsewhere* ... nevermind how many fanboys you can get to say "no problem with nvidia drivers" in a useless poll
:roll:

Yeah, your Sapphire card makes you a real impartial judge on Nvidia drivers. :roll:

I have had an 8800 since shortly after release on XP and Vista. I've seen the growing pains first hand, they aren't as bad as all the little children at the schoolyard make it out to be. But it does seem the popular thing to complain about and sound cool at the schoolyard.

 

[apoppin]

well it DOES look to be twice as fast as my x1950p ...

so i *will* keep it in mind when i run across a game that starts to bog

no rush either ...

but with the choice being either GTS or HDXT, i would choose the XT ... now
-and it ALSO looks like it will pressure nvidia to drop GTS prices

win-win


gotta have more data ... more reviews ... more comparisons ...


but it met my 'revised' expectations - *exactly*

 

[swtethan]

I want BF2 again... but.... GRRR